Range Finders, Film and Photojournalism

It sounds to me as if the rangefinder is far from dead. It is a tool, and it is a well crafted and capable one. What I have read about it having no place in PJ, just never rang true to me. Thank you for your insights into your field. I look forward, as will my son, to seeing your images in the future. They are what first drew me to the camera, and they remain an important part in my life.
 
VinceC said:
In the end, it's all about the image (and, even moreso, the photographer's ability to get the right image to the right publication in the right timeline). I did newspaper feature photography thorugh the 1990s, preferred rangefinders but carried SLRs about half the time, and it didn't really make a difference as to the quality of the image because of the other variables in photojournalism.

Newspapers always have been notorious for treating photojournalism as a commodity. Spend hours crafting, editing and fact-checking a written article, then spend about 11 seconds slapping on a wire image or grabbing one of the staff photog's shots. This isn't universal - there always are good photo editors out there and editors who appreciate photography. But for speed, convenience and cost, newspapers used Speed Graphics during the rangefinder era, went SLR in the 1960s and digital SLR by the early 2000s. I've seen books from the 1950s that draw a sharp distinction between photojournalism (telling a story with photographs) and newspaper photography (getting a single image that tells the story).

By and large the customer (editor of newspaper, magazine, wire photo desk, picture agency) doesn't care about the technology so much as the image itself. This is especially true in the post-darkroom era. SLRs have dominated the photo business since 1960s. But there always are photographers who win major awards or get major audiences using rangefinders and other non mainstream equipment. (There's an award winning combat photographer who uses consumer small-chip non-interchangeable-lens digitals; there also a few years back was a DC photojournalist who took magazine pictures of the president, congressional hearings and other news events using a Speed Graphic.

And a few passionate photographers always have won awards and business with rangefinders, film or digital. The kinds of photographers who are fully dedicated to both the craft and ethics of photojournalism are the ones who win awards and get recognition from their peers. Sometimes, but not always, these are the people who care enough about their mental and physical relationship with the camera itself that they gravitate to Leicas or some other specialty camera. On the other hand, these same people often care so much about the image process, about the human interaction that goes into getting such images, that the camera they're using is largely irrelevant. They would take masterful, memorable photographs with Speed Graphics, Canon G10s, Leicas, or their niece's $34.99 pink Barbie digicam.
Click to expand...

Dear Vince,

Highlighted portion: that distinction has always struck me as quite important.

Cheers,

R.
 
As a working photojournalist I think the M camera design has an important place in our field. Clearly it can't do everything, no system can but for long form and documentary work it is a superb tool. I would say about 75% of the average newspaper photographer's work (excluding sports) could be handled on an M9. At the NYC press event announcing the M9 several working newspaper photographers were lustily eying the M9 and talking to Leica about working out a loan.

In the coming years I actually think we will see an increase in the number of photojournalists using Leica equipment. That said it will be a small minority mostly because the other systems are less expensive and more flexible...

4042775469_1bfd35d046_o.jpg
 
A Leica is what it is. It suits a particular purpose. It can be, but is not a dedicated press camera in today's world. That is left to the Canons and Nikons. Magazine and news work today is essentially point and shoot. Get the shot , publish , get the check.

If you are doing work for reasons which are not dependent upon the machine of business, then you know why you would use such a camera as a Leica, etc.

A rangefinder is by its nature and construction unique and as such it requires a different way of seeing and documenting life and the world.

SLRs or DSLRs are not equals or simply choices to rangefinders. They are quite different and are not generally interchangeable.

BTW Damaso, the above picture is very good. A lot of depth and undercurrent within. Memories come to mind, and how personal each person's can be.

JPM
 
Last edited:
Thanks JPM. I think the big problem is a whole generation (or nearly two) of photojournalists have grown up without using rangefinders. Once one does (as I did) you learn they are much more flexible than you've been lead to believe. But if you've been using autofocus and auto exposure your whole career as many younger photojournalists have then making the switch is daunting indeed.

Interestingly when I went back to visit NYU last year I saw three or four students in the graduating class walking around with Leicas. When I was there a decade ago I don't think one person in my class was using one. So there is hope, or something...
 
The finest photos (imho) have always come from those who were not putting money and security first,
Click to expand...

That being the point and an insightful observation, one's end product is quite different when it is for a media publication which requires a certain and usually superficial point of view to be successful in those mediums. The quiet work, which would simply not do in the above mentioned environments is for the eyes which see beyond the immediate and into the second, and third layer of meaning and beyond.

JPM
 
Damaso said:
Thanks JPM. I think the big problem is a whole generation (or nearly two) of photojournalists have grown up without using rangefinders. Once one does (as I did) you learn they are much more flexible than you've been lead to believe. But if you've been using autofocus and auto exposure your whole career as many younger photojournalists have then making the switch is daunting indeed.

Interestingly when I went back to visit NYU last year I saw three or four students in the graduating class walking around with Leicas. When I was there a decade ago I don't think one person in my class was using one. So there is hope, or something...
Click to expand...


Damaso, I do agree with your analysis. rangefinder photography is a different world from press dslr work for me. I find I am in a totally different mode when doing personal rangefinder work. In it I find that you can really see, and that you can be more easily assimilated by events and people so that you do not stand outside of that which you photograph.

JPM
 
I see the M9 fitting very well into my work. I spent most of my professional career using Leica's. I started using one my third year of college. I used film for the first 5 months of my first real job until the routine of scanning film just got to be too time consuming. Then I purchased the M8. And even though it was flaky, I used it for professional work. Although I still used film every so often.

Now I'm pretty much all digital. Only using film for personal days on occasion. The reason is it is easier to work digitally. It's also quicker. And most publications don't see film development as a valid expense.

I use the M8 professionally for about 90% of my assignments. And I expect the M9 to replace my M8 soon enough. I do use an SLR. But only for about three occasions. One is crap assignments I don't care about. Events and such. Where it's just pictures of people and politicians smiling. I use it for table top work. Studio shots and food reviews. And the last thing I use it for is sports. Or other times where I know I'm going to be really far away from my subject. But for everything else, features, portraits and spot news. It's my Leica that does the job.

wrk1.jpg

SLR - Grand opening of a medical clinic. Who cares. An SLR does the job just fine.

wrk7.jpg

SLR - Sports. A dragon boat race. Action was far off. And far off really isn't for Leica's.

wrk2.jpg

Leica - A church fundraiser for Haiti. Like most assignments. An SLR could have done this. but a Leica does it better.

wrk3.jpg

Leica

wrk4.jpg

Leica

wrk5.jpg

Leica - Assignment was getting images of a man who feeds illegal immigrant migrant workers on a street corner. Perfect for the Leica. A huge SLR would have drawn too much attention. The Leica was trouble enough.

wrk6.jpg

Leica - A house that exploded. The best part of the Leica is that it's easy to carry around. No excuse to not have it with you. So when something goes down. I can just run to a scene and grab the shots.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
his year's world press photo winner shot his on a M6/Tri-X"

I'm not sure how this indicates film is alive and well in the photojournalist world.
Click to expand...
It had occurred to me that if none of the winners used film, there might be a case to say film apparently isn't being used very much. Where the wining shot is on film, one would have to be in denial to suggest it means nothing.
 
It means a photographer who shot the world press photo winner was using an M6. Have many world press photos winners used Leicas and Tri-x? I just hope he has managed to find some work so he doesn't have to sell that Leica. That's the real issue, here.

"In an interview shortly after the award was announced, Suau said he worries the economic crisis may leave him having to find another job or leave the home he just purchased for his family.

The last two months have been especially bad, Suau says. He hasn't had a single assignment except for covering the presidential inauguration for a Japanese book publisher.

"If the situation continues like it has in the last two months, down the road I would be in danger," Suau says. "Do I have to get another job to do something? I don't know. I may have to do something else besides photography."
 
I was reminded of this thread today as I looked over images made by Photojournalist Bruno Stevens. He was a Leica film M shooter until he had to go digital and went with Canon DSLR's. He has since sold his Canon gear and shoots exclusively with the Leica M8 and M9. He does quite well in the PJ world from what I understand so I thought I would share a bit about him and post a link to his site as food for thought. Please note his work is, at time, much, much, much more graphic then what we see in the papers or on TV. Especially his recent work from Haiti (M9& M8) and the Gaza Strip (M8).

FWIW- Is it in poor taste to list gear info when talking about these issues? Perhaps, and if people find that offensive I apologize up front I do not mean and disrespect.

http://www.photoshelter.com/c/bruno
 
Very moving images by Stevens, thanks for the link. It is easy to see that the rangefinder is serving him quite well. I actually appreciate the little equipment info, because I had read a report about the M8 not being useful in the middle east due to the inhospitable climate. While that may have been the case for someone, it does not mean it is the rule, or at least an absolute.

I think it is easy to allow the voices of a few, move people in a preconceived notion of what tools will work in any profession. It would be nice if they did not state things in such absolute, global terms. I understand the rangefinder will not be the most used camera system, but it certainly is a capable one for many photojournalists.
 
These threads are always interesting because they yield the result you would expect on a forum dedicated to rangefinders! Most professional photographers, from PJ's to wedding photographers, are NOT using Leica rangefinders professionally. And that has been the case for almost 40 years. It is an undeniable fact.

I don't think that's because pro shooters are mindless buffoons brainwashed by Nikon and Canon into abandoning the "perfect camera" for our sad SLRS. It took barely more than a decade for SLRs to reduce rangefinders from primary tools to historical curiosity status among most photojournalists.

If RF's work for you professionally, that's great. And for those still getting long-term magazine assignments, that's wonderful. Most PJ's are struggling to survive financially, much less getting regular magazine work.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
If RF's work for you professionally, that's great. And for those still getting long-term magazine assignments, that's wonderful. Most PJ's are struggling to survive financially, much less getting regular magazine work.
Click to expand...

It was just food for thought, nothing more. If anyone looks hard enough they will find what they are looking for. As far as I can tell, the rangefinder has never really gone away from photojournalism. At any giving time in the past 50 years or so you can find PJ's that use them for paid work. Today the story is no different. It's nothing to get defensive about. It is, as they say, what it is. We should celebrate that fact here on the RangeFinderForum, no? :D
 
Pickett Wilson said:
These threads are always interesting because they yield the result you would expect on a forum dedicated to rangefinders! Most professional photographers, from PJ's to wedding photographers, are NOT using Leica rangefinders professionally. And that has been the case for almost 40 years. It is an undeniable fact.

I don't think that's because pro shooters are mindless buffoons brainwashed by Nikon and Canon into abandoning the "perfect camera" for our sad SLRS. It took barely more than a decade for SLRs to reduce rangefinders from primary tools to historical curiosity status among most photojournalists.

If RF's work for you professionally, that's great. And for those still getting long-term magazine assignments, that's wonderful. Most PJ's are struggling to survive financially, much less getting regular magazine work.
Click to expand...

This is such a rant. Please show me where someone has stated that the rangefinder is the dominant camera? Or the preferred camera by even a significant minority? If you look at the original questions posed. I think you will find that the posts have focused on those questions.

Second, who has stated or even insinuated that professionals are mindless buffoons if they are using DSLR's? The only attack I am seeing is your reduction of a legitimate photographic system to a "historical curiosity." This statement implies that it no long has a place or is capable of functioning to the current standards necessary to perform ones job. This is either an ignorant statement or one intended to be offensive, given the examples in this thread alone.

You seem to be very angry. You both imply global prejudicial attitudes and you display them. I would suggest, that if you wish to discuss an off topic issue, start a new thread.

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who shoots with a rangefinder that would not agree that the DSLR's serves the purpose for the mass majority. In fact, that is the essence of the questions I posed. Will the rangefinder continue to find a place in the photojournalists world or will it parish. For some of us it is nice to see that it has a place and that it is still being used to produce wonderful images. Hence, your last paragraph is the one I am sure with which everyone agrees.


Regards,
 
the word "photojournalism" continues to be tossed around here and its sort of akin to saying "athletes" where XXX shoes and BBB shoes are obsolete... no one uses them. it is a VERY broad term and there are loads of rigs out there. i have been in press pits where folks from very highly regarded mags show up with canon g10's and the images show up on the bloody cover. i saw a piece that was run nationally last year that was shot on a holga (Toronto Film Festival 2009). i know a bloke that runs around toronto with ONE nikon d100 (ancient technology) and he makes very good money. My good friend Earl and i spent an afternoon with a fine bloke from Magnum (sporting single M6/35mm 'cron and a bestbuy consumer camcorder) and all around us there were dlsrs with 6 foot lenses hammering away like a chorus of jackhammers. who do you reckon is going to be working next year?

the folks that drone on about "you have to have such and such gear to be a photojournalist" or "no one uses XXX gear anymore" have a very narrow view of photojournalism and i would not, for a second, heed their advice. if you want jobs and you want to survive the first step is to get as far away from that crowd as you can. shooting the same "tight and bright" formulated drivel that a thousand other soon to be laid off "photojournalists" are pumping out every hour of every single day will get you nowhere but sitting at the pub moaning about how "amateurs wrecked the industry".
 
emraphoto said:
the word "photojournalism" continues to be tossed around here and its sort of akin to saying "athletes" where XXX shoes and BBB shoes are obsolete... no one uses them. it is a VERY broad term and there are loads of rigs out there. i have been in press pits where folks from very highly regarded mags show up with canon g10's and the images show up on the bloody cover. i saw a piece that was run nationally last year that was shot on a holga (Toronto Film Festival 2009). i know a bloke that runs around toronto with ONE nikon d100 (ancient technology) and he makes very good money. My good friend Earl and i spent an afternoon with a fine bloke from Magnum (sporting single M6/35mm 'cron and a bestbuy consumer camcorder) and all around us there were dlsrs with 6 foot lenses hammering away like a chorus of jackhammers. who do you reckon is going to be working next year?

the folks that drone on about "you have to have such and such gear to be a photojournalist" or "no one uses XXX gear anymore" have a very narrow view of photojournalism and i would not, for a second, heed their advice. if you want jobs and you want to survive the first step is to get as far away from that crowd as you can. shooting the same "tight and bright" formulated drivel that a thousand other soon to be laid off "photojournalists" are pumping out every hour of every single day will get you nowhere but sitting at the pub moaning about how "amateurs wrecked the industry".
Click to expand...

How do you really feel?

I think I will be raising a toast tonight to your post, and the incredible images still made utilizing rangefinders - Cheers!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom